The Irrelevancy of Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is one of those interesting people who, because they know a great deal about a particular field, presume to have the authority to speak on other fields, usually with embarrassing results. I do not know if the man himself has ever been publicly embarrassed, but when I read Dawkins I sometimes blush nervously on his behalf. It’s like Freud talking on the ‘delusions of religion’ all over again.

Before I go on I ought to clarify that I am not actually taking a side in this debate. It is true that I am a transcendentalist and ‘religious’, but that is not the issue I am having with Dr. Dawkins. I don’t mind atheists: several of my closest friends are agnostics or atheists; I mind the illogical, and you will see my irritation lash out against both the ignorant Christian as well as the ignorant atheist, even more so against the former.

Dawkins makes several claims which are alternatively irrelevant or illogical.

First off, he is a champion of evolution and a staunch opponent of so-called creationism. His statements and arguments seem to boil down to this simple formula:

Evolution and Creationism are logically incompatible. Therefore, if evolution is true, creationism must be false.

This argument is flawed inherently, based on the first assumption. Evolution may be the very means by which God could have crafted life; God Himself could have been the driving force behind evolution. The seven “days” of creation could easily have been several much larger periods of time for which we are unaware; millions, perhaps even billions of years. Note too that in God’s creation of the world, life begins in the oceans, moves to land, and produces man last. Sound familiar? Whether or not this is true is not something for debate at the moment, I aim only to show that the two ideologies need not be opposed at all, but are rather quite complimentary. Consequently, the soundness of evolution becomes largely irrelevant to the considerations of a deity.

This of course brings me to another point, namely, that Dr. Dawkins has considerably overestimated the place of science in the pursuit of understanding. This is the part where I am quite surprised, because I would think that a scientist of all people would be intimately aware of the limitations of science itself, and should not be so easily disproven by a non-scientist like myself.

What is the first thing we learn in middle school about the scientific method? It is based on observation. The bottom line is that science, however complicated it might actually be, really all boils down to observation and the recording of that observation. Theories get pieced together after that, but that is the fundamental basis for science. Now, science is very useful and important, but because it is grounded only in what is directly observable, it is limited to observations of matter; subjects and entities whose very nature transcends matter (and space and time) are about as accessible to science as the stratosphere is to a fish. It is not for nothing that Hegel warned: “Physics, beware metaphysics”

Because of science’s limitations, Dawkins, no matter how long he rants or how many ad hominem attacks he makes at creationism, cannot explain the causal origin of the universe with mere “science.”
Here is a standard metaphysical proof:

1) Matter exists in a causal relation to other matter. That is to say, one thing causes another, which causes another, and so forth.
2) However, this causal chain cannot be infinite, because an infinite series cannot be traversed. Consequently, if there were an infinite number of days before today, today would never have arrived.
3) The causal chain is therefore finite, with a distinct beginning.
4) The universe did not cause itself, because to cause itself, a thing would have to exist prior to itself, which is impossible.
5) Therefore, the universe must have been created by something outside and independent of the universe.
6) Whatever caused the universe is beyond that which governs the universe, namely, time and space.
7) Science can only deal with observable phenomena.
8) Things which are beyond time and space are not observable phenomena.
9) Therefore, science cannot even begin to be involved in cosmology, or any sort of speculation about the probably cause or causes of the universe.

Done and done.
By the same logic, science is not equipped to handle speculations about the nature of God or gods, the spiritual plane, or metaphysical cosmology of any kind.

Dawkins, and others, attack things for not being “scientific” but fail to realize that science is not the end-all. Science itself is only the daughter of the larger field of philosophy, and is itself grounded in one kind of philosophical world view: that of empiricism. It might be easier to think of science as a sort of specialty field within philosophy. It is by no means absolute: it is actually rather specialized for gathering one type of information in one kind of medium.

So much for Dr. Dawkins.

I am actually quite surprised, still, that someone as educated as Dr. Dawkins would be capable of making such enormous blunders of logic, but I attribute that to the fact that his education is in ethology and evolutionary biology, not philosophy and logic, and certainly not metaphysics. Consequently I do not feel any glow of pride for my critique of him. Yes he may be an esteemed and published doctor three times my age, but he is contending in a field which is not his own. What did he expect?

From now on, let us limit wild accusations to things on which we are actually authorities.

16 Responses

You’re absolutely right; science cannot (so far as we’re aware) observe anything before the Big Bang, which is why most scientists don’t even bother to speculate on it. This isn’t some shocking discovery that you’ve made; scientists readily admit this. It’s frustrating, but it’s simply an admission that nobody can, at the moment, observe anything prior to the Big Bang and will most likely never be able to.

You’re wrong about science and cosmology, however; the scientific study of cosmology (or physical cosmology) involves the history of the Universe as a whole, not just how it began.

As well as that, a ‘causal chain’ at all implies the passage of time, which the Big Bang created (along with other feature of the Universe). Your metaphysical proof is making the same mistake that you erroneously blame scientists for making; you’re assuming that you know what conditions existed prior to the Universe (or ‘outside’ of the Universe).

I’m always a bit confused when people say that science is not equipped to study the nature of ‘gods’ or ‘the spiritual plane’. If we can’t detect these things through observation and analysis, how would you suggest that we determine whether they exist or not?

I live in the UK where, for decades, religious idiots were left to do their humiliating and degrading groveling to their imaginary friend in private. Lately they have got above themselves and started to demand special access to government, subverting the democratic process. Our last prime minister kept very quiet about his little vice so many people voted for him unaware that he would enacted laws to allow religious bodies to take over large sections of our public education and care systems which they are proceeding to run for their own ends.

If the faithful would get back into their churches and leave the rest of us alone we would spend our time on rational pursuits and leave you lot to your fairy tales.

Vitamin book,
Thank you for your constructive comments.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the Big Bang, then; would you care to enlighten me? The part of my proof states that a thing cannot create itself still holds true; as far as I can understand, the causal source for the Big Bang would have to be something beyond the universe.

To answer your question about the means for discerning the nature of the spiritual realm: it is quite easy to know truths independently of experience. The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant revolutionized the problems of knowledge and epistemology as a whole with his ideas of synthetic and analytic judgments, as well as the difference between knowledge a priori and knowledge a posteriori. It’s well worth looking in to if you are serious about the problem of knowledge. I have yet to write a critique of Kant, but I have a good overview on some a priori things in my post “Starting Points.” You can search for it at the top of the page.

If making ad hominem attacks is not an argument, then what am I to make of the post? You declare Dawkins illogical, but you go on to merely summarize your account of his position, never actually quoting anything he actually argues. This leaves your arguments against him in the position of being, well, falsehoods.

For instance, you take him to task for supposedly illogically declaring that creationism and evolution are incompatible. But this is a gross distortion of what he’s said. He’s never said that it’s impossible to imagine a creator God who carefully acts such that it appears as if its all been a natural process. He’s simply argued that such a thing explains nothing and is extraneous. You really don’t seem to have read what he’s written here, because he’s discussed all the various different forms of everything from theistic evolution to creationism. He’s even offered defenses of theistic evolution to show that theists need not think that evolution requires them to give up their theism (he just doesn’t think the original theism is justified).

He certainly has argued that science is incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible, and it is, as even you seem to concede. But the Bible is incompatible with science in any case at least in the example you note. Even if you read it metaphorically to be talking about long ages, it has things like birds appearing far too early: before land animals! It has plants appearing before the sun. And so on. Nor does it ever say anything about life “beginning” in the sea: that’s an over-interpretation of things.

And while you speak of learning the scientific method, even emphasizing this by claiming that it was repeated over and over, you get it, frankly, quote wrong. Observation is NOT, in fact, the core step in the scientific process. Observation is the step in which you observe some question or problem in the first place, not how you resolve it. You resolve it via evidence, of which eyewitness accounts are only one kind, and not even close to the most reliable.

As to science having limitations: of course. That’s one of its great strengths, in fact. But that science if limited does not mean that supernaturalism is warranted. Again, you very clearly haven’t read what Dawkins has argued on these subjects. He’s never claimed that science is fully “equipped to handle speculations about the nature of God or gods, the spiritual plane, or metaphysical cosmology of any kind.” Instead, he’s argued that either we can scientific present evidence for those things or not, and if not, then it’s not clear what alternate method there is for presenting them as anything other than idle imagination.

This is not to say that Dawkins is a genius philosopher or without clumsy error in this realm. But none of your criticisms actually respond to anything he’s actually said: you seem to be arguing against some very vague, and even confused, assumptions about what he’s said.

“Bad:”
You raise good points. It is true that I have not read Dawkins extensively, and I can’t help feeling that I am one the worse for it. But I do feel that most of core points remain intact. Perhaps you can educate me: I did not know that he had offered some sort of theistic alternative to evolution, and if that is so, I am keen to read it. However, are you saying that he is in support of such a world-view? If not, then my original point about science being unable to solve metaphysical problems still stands. My intitial point was derived from the impression that I got from The God Delusion, which appeared to defeat God by propping up evolution as the contrary. Is that mistaken?

What I was saying about the scientific method was simply that it is contingent upon observable phenomenon, which I think you’ll agree with. My point is simply that science is grounded in empiricism, and that empiricism is only part of the greater whole of philosophy, which, as I discussed in a previous comment, has other means of discernment.

Thank you for your constructive comments.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the Big Bang, then; would you care to enlighten me? The part of my proof states that a thing cannot create itself still holds true; as far as I can understand, the causal source for the Big Bang would have to be something beyond the universe.

Nobody knows. However, keep in mind that, ‘before’ the Big Bang, any conditions of existence would most likely have been completely different to the Universe we now live in. (And indeed, it may not even make sense to talk about any of those things – remember, things like space-time were created with the Big Bang; presumably, they did not exist prior to it.) At the moment, the theory states that the Big Bang itself was a rapid expansion from an extremely hot, dense point – the key word here is ‘expansion’, not ‘creation’. The Big Bang did not involve a lot of matter simply popping into existence from nothing, and it may be useful to keep in mind that the early Universe was extremely basic – it was many thousands of years before large structures like stars formed.

As for Kant, I did read some of his writings in summarized form (that is, a modern author explaining them rather than Kant himself), but I’ve never been terribly convinced by any metaphysical justifications for the spiritual or divine. I’m always left with the distinct impression that the philosopher in question already believed in God and was simpy building a foundation to make that belief appear more rational. I will go and look for that post you mentioned, though.

The number of mistakes that brains like yours have produced is endless, starting with a flat Earth and Sun revolving around the Earth. Also burning of those who did not believe the God creation nonsense, is really well known, as next the killing of people in the name of God has been and still is absolutely common in human society. So you might feel some urge to rethink what you have written, if you are really capable of at least some minimum of logic. I meet millions of people who thin k they are logical but only after a few minutes talk I can find they are not, they only pretend to be using logic by using words that sound so greaaaaat!!!. But hthere are no logical links. I am really sorry for you, and I know if you had lived several hundreds years ago you may well get involved in incquisions, also a typical development in the name of God.

Borek123456,
Your comment was neither constructive nor logical, nor did you even have the most common of courtesies to post on-topic. In the future please refrain from ad hominem attacks and the tone of condescending malice with which you wrote.
In the future, posts of this nature will be deleted.

To me it boils down to a simple comparison, do you believe in modern scientific knowledge or 4 – 5 thousand year old myths and superstions written by ignorant, primitive people? Hmmm….that’s kind of a hard desision…..NOT!

So, let’s see….either an invisible, supernatural Santa Clause int the sky “poofed” people into existence or else made the first man out of dirt and then, as an afterthought, made the first woman out of his rib. (Because he was too stupid to realize ahead of time that he would need a woman) :-) or….life evolved naturally from simpler forms as all of the scientific evidence suggests…..yep….really no hard choices there.

Zachary,
It seems to me you really ought to read more Dawkins before calling him illogical. Specifically he addresses the Cosmological Argument, the argument which you posited in your post with the trailing comment “done and done”, in a section of The God Delusion called something like “The Ultimate 747” (or something like that)…

I will merely state that positing God in no way gets you out of the causation problem (what caused God? did he pop into existence? if a complicated thing like him is everlasting and not to be held to the causation problem, then why not a simpler thing like matter, energy, or something we do not yet understand?)… not only does “god” not get you out of the cosmological argument, positing his existance is a little like getting on the space shuttle to go around the block, it might get you there, but what’s the point?

It sounds to me as if you WANT Dawkins to be illogical, but your wanting won’t make it so…

Tyson,
I will resign that I have not read much Dawkins in a long time, but I will not resign the specific critiques about God.

Use the “search” feature on this site to find the entry “Starting Points”; it is the answer to your question about how God escapes the causal problem.

While I like you analogy of using a space shuttle to get around the block, it’s not quite apt. Matter and energy are both bound by time, and time is what the causal chain is based upon. God IS in fact the solution to the cosmological argument, and the only possible one at that. Check out the above-mentioned post.

And please, “something we do not yet understand” is a terrible, terrible cop-out. Besides, the nature of God is quite simple when one gets right down to it.

Just a quick note to cover the last throwaway comment in your last Blog comment.

“Something we do not understand” is NOT a cop-out. Science does not have all the answers and probably never will. Scientists know this, but continue in their quest to fill the gaps.

Years ago we did not understand what lightning was, and it was put down to Gods arguing, Thor having a bad day or any other number of other reasons. We did not understyand it – we understand it better now, and are still researching parts of it we dont. We did not understand the mechanism of inheritance from our parents, we understand it better now with the discovery of DNA.

“Something we do not understand” is a fairly valid thing to say when we dont, there is no need to replace it with a religious stop-gap explanation. We dont need to (or at least cant) explain everything right now and anyone who says we have all the answers is probably also seeking your credit card number….

Volcanoes, earthquakes, natural disasters, all things we dont understand to some degree or other which previously we put down to Gods will, angry deities or other reasons relating to the unhappiness or otherwise of some deity or spirit or other. These were all things we did not understand. It is through science that this understanding is growing and replacing the religious and other superstitious reasons surrounding them.

GM is right on. Do you really think that if something is unkown, Zachary, that “God did it?”… wow, he must be pissed that things keep getting taken away!

as for matter being bound by time… i dunno about that, space and time are intimately connected (ever hear of Special Relativity Theory?)… and as for just saying, “O, god is not bound by time” does not magically get you out of the causation problem, i’m sorry, it just doesn’t… whatever you can posit about “god” you can posit about simpler processes, process that take billions of years to create life as we know it, and processes that don’t require all the hocus-pocus about the problem of evil, freewill, and the sundry other “excuses” that theologians have to make up to explain why the world the way that it is… those problems just go away once you see that there is very very likely no God… as for God being “simple,” i guess when you are just making things up, you can use words in any way you choose…

I agree about Dawkins’ fallacious reasoning, and as you say a “scientist” of all people should remain aware of the limits of science.

The problem with Dawkins is that he completely misses the fact that HE also has faith and relies upon it, BUT he carefully avoids this issue. It is obvious that he must have faith in his senses, because it is pure faith to believe that one’s senses are a reliable basis for aquiring objective knowledge.

There is no way, scientific or otherwise that Dawkins can prove that his senses are a source to objective truth. By defintion science assumes that one shares the world with other sentient beings, and we are not isolated solopsists.

Dawkins obvioulsy considers this to be objectively true, but he can never prove it, even to himself, so if he cannot logically and scientifically prove something, yet considers it to be true, he is no different to someone who beleives in “God’.

The difference between Dawkins and someone who considers God to be “true” is that the latter indvidual is honest about faith, whereas Dawkins is clearly either dishonest or intellectually unable to see the weakness in his own position.